3 ms·

1. I don't think global warming cares who emits the carbon. If climate change is really as big and life changing an issue as everyone knows it is they will sign

1. I don't think global warming cares who emits the carbon. If climate change is really as big and life changing an issue as everyone knows it is they will sign on, there is no reason to sign away the livelihoods of Americans to benefit China, what happens when you do that is those people whose jobs you have just ended do in fact have opinions and votes. 2. We are subsidizing them with no benefit to us at all, and in turn we are also giving them the ability to outperform us in manufacturing the capability to create clean energy, if you want to help them use clean energy mandate that it comes from local companies. No one will like someone else showing up with bags full of sovereign wealth and tipping the scales. These countries per capita might be poorer, but from a global markets level they are right on par with their American counterparts. 3. Debate? We are by far the largest foreign aid donor. 4. The Paris Agreement was signed by the President without the consent of congress, partially because it didn't win over right-wing Americans. At some point we need to be adults about this and do something, the country is not supposed to be run as a Dictatorship by either party, all its doing is slowly killing everyone

ryanobjc 9y ago
2. I'm pretty sure not having oceanic level rise, and drowning out the most expensive real state in the world is a benefit to us! The notion that somehow the developed world gives $100b (over what time frame? That matters a lot) and gets nothing in return is ridiculous. Manufacturing clean energy stuff is not within grasp of most developing countries. So they have to import tools, expertise and goods... from where? 3. The US gave $31b in foreign aid. Which sounds generous, until you do it per capita. In which case the US slips way off. The closest economic comparison would probably be the EU which gave $87b away. I, like many, consider charitable giving and aid a sign of strength, not a reason to whine about how unfair life is when you're the richest.
- dkhenry 9y ago
  2. They are not importing tools and expertise, they are have the tools and expertise and they are not only deploying it locally they are exporting it to America. If you want to see some a benefit then write the mandate that American companies must be used to provide the clean energy capabilities to the developing countries. Not only would that be rejected it would be a bad idea for many reasons, but the opposite is deemed to be OK. 3. Even per capita we are 21st in the world, not bad especially when you consider that as that number gets bigger the return you get on it diminishes.
  - greglindahl 9y ago
    3. Yeah, why on earth would a super-rich country be expected to be near the top? We agreed to a 0.7% target for aid, and we've been failing to meet it.
  - tclancy 9y ago
    >Even per capita we are 21st in the world, not bad But not exceptional. Certainly not worth complaining about either.
  - digitalzombie 9y ago
    > they are have the tools and expertise and they are not only deploying it locally they are exporting it to America What countries are you talking about? What mythical poor countries have tools and expertise and what not? And to compete with us against what? We've moved to a global economy and basically doing what wealth of nation stated, we have specialize in things we do best while other countries specialize on their own thing. If Swiss and Japan wants to make awesome watch go for it. If labor is cheaper in China then okay. But they can't and have not taken higher end skill set. You just can't export those. And you just side step the world being screw to concentrate on our country. But at the same time OP addresses that with saving our coastal property. The mega cities that make a boat load of GDP is Los Angeles and NY which will be screwed with the rising sea water. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_by_GDP https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_by_GDP
  - cerebellum42 9y ago
    Re. 2: Most of the aid funds are actually transferred in the form of subsidies to deals with companies from the "giving" country. For example, India is massively expanding its solar energy capacities. This is happening partly as a deal with German companies and the German government, which subsidizes the whole trade. That way India gets cheap solar energy infrastructure and Germany supports its solar energy industry. I honestly don't know if this is happening in the same way with American companies, but to be honest, if it's not that would make me want to take a hard look at the reasons for it. Lack of effort from the government to make those deals, or inability to make attractive deals - which would be a rather worrying indicator of the american industry's health. By completely exiting, Trump is effectively leaving the field of renewable energies to other countries. By relying more on burning fossil fuels for energy he can definitely give America a short term boost by preventing energy costs from rising further, but he might also cripple its renewable energy industry - which employs more US citizens than Oil, Coal and Gas combined. Trump wouldn't have had to exit the agreement to do what he wants by the way - the agreement does not have any penalties for not fulfilling it, and it allows every country to adjust its own goals in the agreement, without asking anyone else for permission.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
flukus 9y ago
> I don't think global warming cares who emits the carbon. It doesn't. Most of the carbon in the atmosphere today was emitted by the western world though and it's up to them to show leadership and address the problem they created.
azernik 9y ago
With regards to 1), that isn't about global warming caring; that's about people caring. The current international system will not back a plan that prolongs the very low living standards that around half the world lives in. For example, ain't no way that India would sign a treaty agreeing to remain pre-industrial indefinitely.
Paradigma11 9y ago
But wouldnt you agree that a per capita limit is the way to go. If not would you give Luxembourg the same carbon emission allowance as india? I dont think keeping developing countries down by limiting their per capita to a much lower standard will fly in this century.
- rtx 9y ago
  As an Indian, I am with Trump with this one. Per capita consumption would be the wrong way to look at it at this stage. If these people really cared about the environment they should have been promoting nuclear or promoting less(zero) meat consumption. India and China should have the same targets as everyone else. We don't need concession to set up coal plants. Removing restrictions on nuclear tech would be better.

ryanobjc 9y ago

2. I'm pretty sure not having oceanic level rise, and drowning out the most expensive real state in the world is a benefit to us! The notion that somehow the developed world gives $100b (over what time frame? That matters a lot) and gets nothing in return is ridiculous. Manufacturing clean energy stuff is not within grasp of most developing countries. So they have to import tools, expertise and goods... from where? 3. The US gave $31b in foreign aid. Which sounds generous, until you do it per capita. In which case the US slips way off. The closest economic comparison would probably be the EU which gave $87b away. I, like many, consider charitable giving and aid a sign of strength, not a reason to whine about how unfair life is when you're the richest.

dkhenry 9y ago
2. They are not importing tools and expertise, they are have the tools and expertise and they are not only deploying it locally they are exporting it to America. If you want to see some a benefit then write the mandate that American companies must be used to provide the clean energy capabilities to the developing countries. Not only would that be rejected it would be a bad idea for many reasons, but the opposite is deemed to be OK. 3. Even per capita we are 21st in the world, not bad especially when you consider that as that number gets bigger the return you get on it diminishes.
- greglindahl 9y ago
  3. Yeah, why on earth would a super-rich country be expected to be near the top? We agreed to a 0.7% target for aid, and we've been failing to meet it.
- tclancy 9y ago
  >Even per capita we are 21st in the world, not bad But not exceptional. Certainly not worth complaining about either.
- digitalzombie 9y ago
  > they are have the tools and expertise and they are not only deploying it locally they are exporting it to America What countries are you talking about? What mythical poor countries have tools and expertise and what not? And to compete with us against what? We've moved to a global economy and basically doing what wealth of nation stated, we have specialize in things we do best while other countries specialize on their own thing. If Swiss and Japan wants to make awesome watch go for it. If labor is cheaper in China then okay. But they can't and have not taken higher end skill set. You just can't export those. And you just side step the world being screw to concentrate on our country. But at the same time OP addresses that with saving our coastal property. The mega cities that make a boat load of GDP is Los Angeles and NY which will be screwed with the rising sea water. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_by_GDP https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_by_GDP
- cerebellum42 9y ago
  Re. 2: Most of the aid funds are actually transferred in the form of subsidies to deals with companies from the "giving" country. For example, India is massively expanding its solar energy capacities. This is happening partly as a deal with German companies and the German government, which subsidizes the whole trade. That way India gets cheap solar energy infrastructure and Germany supports its solar energy industry. I honestly don't know if this is happening in the same way with American companies, but to be honest, if it's not that would make me want to take a hard look at the reasons for it. Lack of effort from the government to make those deals, or inability to make attractive deals - which would be a rather worrying indicator of the american industry's health. By completely exiting, Trump is effectively leaving the field of renewable energies to other countries. By relying more on burning fossil fuels for energy he can definitely give America a short term boost by preventing energy costs from rising further, but he might also cripple its renewable energy industry - which employs more US citizens than Oil, Coal and Gas combined. Trump wouldn't have had to exit the agreement to do what he wants by the way - the agreement does not have any penalties for not fulfilling it, and it allows every country to adjust its own goals in the agreement, without asking anyone else for permission.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

flukus 9y ago

> I don't think global warming cares who emits the carbon. It doesn't. Most of the carbon in the atmosphere today was emitted by the western world though and it's up to them to show leadership and address the problem they created.

azernik 9y ago

With regards to 1), that isn't about global warming caring; that's about people caring. The current international system will not back a plan that prolongs the very low living standards that around half the world lives in. For example, ain't no way that India would sign a treaty agreeing to remain pre-industrial indefinitely.

Paradigma11 9y ago

But wouldnt you agree that a per capita limit is the way to go. If not would you give Luxembourg the same carbon emission allowance as india? I dont think keeping developing countries down by limiting their per capita to a much lower standard will fly in this century.

rtx 9y ago
As an Indian, I am with Trump with this one. Per capita consumption would be the wrong way to look at it at this stage. If these people really cared about the environment they should have been promoting nuclear or promoting less(zero) meat consumption. India and China should have the same targets as everyone else. We don't need concession to set up coal plants. Removing restrictions on nuclear tech would be better.